under capitalism, ‘the dull compulsion of economic relations’ subordinates the
labourer to the capitalist (1970: 737). Even the independent producers of
commodities suffer what Marx calls ‘the coercion exerted by the presence of their
mutual interests’ (1970: 356).
But what about social examples that not only avoid the state, but do not involve
the market either? What of the relationship between parent and child, teacher and
student, doctor and patient? Are these not spheres in which we can(although do
not always) witness the kind of respect that is essential for authority but which
excludes power? However, J.S. Mill raises a problem that calls this analysis into
question. In On LibertyMill champions the right of the individual to think and act
freely. In his argument he contrasts the physical force of the state to what he calls
‘the moral coercion of public opinion’ (1974: 68). Morality itself is seen as
constraining, and we would contend that the very notion of a relationship subverts
the idea that power and authority can be spliced apart. If all relationships are
governed by norms (i.e. morality) of some kind, how then can any relationships be
free from pressures of a constraining kind?Negative and positive power
We have assumed that power and authority are contrasting concepts. But a
distinction is often made between power as a negative and power as a positive
concept. This, as we will see, has important implications for the concept of authority.
Power is negativein the sense that it relates to my ability to get you to do things
that you otherwise would not do. The negative view of power is associated with
the liberal tradition, and centres around the capacity of the individual to act freely
and take responsibility for his actions. It is a notion deeply rooted in our culture,
and, in our view, forms a necessary part of any analysis of power. People who
exercise power, can and should be punished (or helped) when they exercise this
power in ways which harm others or, indeed, irreversibly harm themselves. By this
latter point, we mean a situation in which people cannot change their minds because,
as with serious self-abuse, or taking addictive drugs, it is too late. This notion
emphasises the differences between people and their conflict of interests. Each
individual is separate, and we are all capable of exercising negative power.
In contrast, power is deemed positivewhen it is expressed as empowerment.
Empowerment occurs when one person helps (‘empowers’) themselves or another,
or when a group or community enables people to develop. Contrary to what people
may think, the notion of power as negative is a modern one while the ancients took
the view that power was always expressed positively within communities. The idea
of power being exercised to strengthen our relations with others is a very old one.
Positive power is seen as the ability to do things by the discovery of our own
strength – a capacity, a power to– as opposed to negative power which is seen as
a power over– a domination. The conventional view sees power in negative terms,
linked to the state, and force or the threat of force. Elshtain distinguishes between
potestas– which relates to control, supremacy, domination – and potential– which
relates to ability, efficacy and potency, especially that which is ‘unofficial and
sinister’ (Elshtain, 1992: 117).What is power? 5